The problem with the royalty assessment is it doesn't make Apple whole or redress the injury. First, when somebody buys an Android device over an iOS device, Apple views this as a customer that potentially is lost to Apple for life because the customer is buying into the Android Eco-systems (e.g. applications). So, paying Apple a royalty on its patent doesn't address Apple's over all injury, which would also include lost sales from the purchase of applications, accessories, and possibly future hardware.

Second, unlike other companies, Apple defines itself by the overall design of its product. It doesn't create generic looking cases for its products. It wants customers to be able to walk into a store and say that is an Apple product based on the appearance of the product. This is no different then what companies like Coke did with the classic coke bottle, or GM did with the Corvette. Try bottling a beverage in a bottle that looks like a Classic Coke bottle and see what happens. Coke has a Trademark in the Design of the Bottle. You would be paying damages, and facing an injunction. Hersey recently successfully obtained an injunction against Art Van for dressing a couch up in a commercial to look like a Hersey Kiss. Coke wins injunctions all the time.

Apple's beef with Samsung is Samsung has designed its products to look like Apple's products. Among other things, this a classic trade dress complaint. At a Best buy recently, I have witnessed customer confusion first hand. I saw two different people walk by a Samsung display, and say something like hey look at the iPhone.

Samsung's actions are both confusing consumers, and infringing Apple's trade dress. Giving Apple a royalty payment only satisfies Apple's patent damages, not the infringement of its Trade dress claims, which would be ongoing.

So, I say yes, Samsung should be enjoined especially since it has intentionally and blatantly designed its products to mimic Apple's.

First, I agree with the shortfalls of royalty assessment. But what I am trying to say is that granting a preliminary injunction was too harsh for the matter at issue. The matter at issue is infringing on trade dress. For a gadget, since when this became a crucial factor for sales? It has always been the overall user experience with gadget, and while the Samsung's and Apple's gadget may look similar, the experiences are startlingly different due to their OS and hardware. Also, it will be the same, if not harder, to make Samsung whole when the final verdict comes out, though unlikely, against the preliminary injunction.

Second, I can't buy the argument that Apple defines itself by the overall design means anything. It is not just Apple but many other, if not all, companies try to do. It is just that Apple does it very well. And, I think I probably can't distinguish between SONY TV and SAMSUNG TV unless I come close and read the brand name on the TVs.

Finally, like I said, Apple should've registered its design as a trademark. But rather, they registered their UI and overall designs as patents. It is precisely because they know that arguing these cases through trademark, they have much slimmer chance of winning a verdict against Samsung.

Preliminary injunction is a very strong legal remedy especially for gadgets that have very short life span. It practically meant complete ban on Samsung's products without having a full trial at issue.

I don't think it was the right remedy because people know. People already love Apple more and criticize Samsung for copying out of moral reasons not legal reasons. Does Apple really need to be protected here? Maybe through damages... later...

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-range

If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out .

The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.

If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.

Well, you never gave a reason why or how to distinguish between the two situations:

one about finally improving the notification system that's been successfully implemented by others,
and the other about finally improving the tablet design that's been successfully redefined by Apple.

Both Tablets and Notification Systems were out there for long.
Apple did not innovate or invent, they simply improved.

Again, my point was that Apple utilizes legal systems to get what they want (registering designs as patents rather than copyrights/trademarks because they know they are harder to obtain injunctions and damages), without giving up a shit. What a selfish bastard mindset?

IP Law is to protect creators and to protect fair market competition; but at the moment, Apple is using this tool way beyond well (rather sickly) and it is rather ATTACKING and BURYING their potential rivals and raising barriers to enter the market, by saying "oh dude, that one is just like ours, so stop selling it and make it look like a shit."

"We" are the majority of participants in AppleInsider forums, and I am quite sure most of us think Apple invented multitouch. As does Apple (read these two patents). Now the legal systems are beginning to agree.

It took four years for the first case to come to trial and be decided. "We" waited a long time for it.

"We" are the majority of participants in AppleInsider forums, and I am quite sure most of us think Apple invented multitouch. As does Apple (read these two patents). Now the legal systems are beginning to agree.

It took four years for the first case to come to trial and be decided. "We" waited a long time for it.

No offense to any readers here as I've come to enjoy many of you but I'd hope that a majority of people here know damn well Apple did NOT invent multitouch.

Specific gestures? sure, but the entire concept? No as the concept of using multiple fingers on a single device is not new.

No offense to any readers here as I've come to enjoy many of you but I'd hope that a majority of people here know damn well Apple did NOT invent multitouch.

Specific gestures? sure, but the entire concept? No as the concept of using multiple fingers on a single device is not new.

Apple (via Fingerworks) may have a reasonable claim to have been the first to implement multitouch on a capacitative screen, which seems to be the basis for their patents. They clearly were not the first to design or use multitouch in general.

The "infringement" Samsung is being accused of is a violation of Apple's patent-granted sole right to produce [make] the intellectual property in question, without permission. The only way to infringe a patent right is to produce a similar or identical product - in other words to COPY it, and if the copy was made without permission (in this case it has previously been unequivocally determined that it was without permission), it violates the patent holder's rights for their intellectual property, which therefore, buy definition, constitutes STEALING.

The "infringement" Samsung is being accused of is a violation of Apple's patent-granted sole right to produce [make] the intellectual property in question, without permission. The only way to infringe a patent right is to produce a similar or identical product - in other words to COPY it, and if the copy was made without permission (in this case it has previously been unequivocally determined that it was without permission), it violates the patent holder's rights for their intellectual property, which therefore, buy definition, constitutes STEALING.

Soooo, let me just correct that for you:

so you admit that the injunction was granted based on the similarity to a drawing of a non-existent device?

so you admit that the injunction was granted based on the similarity to a drawing of a non-existent device?

So we agree.

No, I do not admit that, nor do we agree. In point of fact, I never stated anything of the sort.

As you can see in my post, what I stated was that a ban was apparently granted on the basis of a patent violation. I made no mention of the specifics or merits of the the patent or the ban. I furthermore explained to you why a patent infringement is by definition copying and theft, as you seemed to be confused about the definition.

On a personal note: You're not very good at this, are you? You're again trying to deflect by injecting irrelevant statements. You're like my 16-year old step-son, being contrary for it's own sake isn't constructive. You argue for the sake of argument, and when you exhaust even your weakest basis for argument, you simply emit nonsense.

"MultiTouch" as a trademark was ruled against recently. The court said that the word was in such common usage, almost immediately after Apple released the iPhone, that it couldn't be trademarked. Of course it was in common usage because of Google's rip-off of Apple's technology.

Well, it looks like the copyists will be able to use the word but not the technology!

Trademark and patents are two different things. Apple was denied the trademark of "multi-touch" - meaning they cannot exclusively use the term multi-touch and prevent others from doing so. Patents on the technology, however, means that they hold the rights to the technology.

The only thing I see in this battle is that both companies want the same thing - market share and money. I love apple products but I can't take their side on this and neither can I take Samsungs side on this one. They both deserve a spanking! The whole patent system needs to take a step back a figure out whether or not the current system is the best for our economy and innovation.

If Apple's multitouch patent can survive at all, it will likely be because it's so very specific that it's easy for other vendors to work around, just like the bounce-back scroll which was ultimately the only claim Apple presented that wasn't completely thrown out by the Dutch court, where the court gave Samsung several weeks to revise the few lines of coded needed to avoid "infringement".

Actually my post did not say or imply "earlier injunctions" - it said (to AbsoluteDesignz) "you agreed earlier..." but no matter - I see the source of the confusion.

Your other points are good. I suspect the patents are specific enough, and that the workaround route will be the solution, but who knows.

The only thing I see in this battle is that both companies want the same thing - market share and money. I love apple products but I can't take their side on this and neither can I take Samsungs side on this one. They both deserve a spanking! The whole patent system needs to take a step back a figure out whether or not the current system is the best for our economy and innovation.

Honestly...I don't really give a damn about Samsung. lol.

The reason I'm so defensive here is because the precedent these set for the future of products.

A ban based on a drawing?

A ban based on tech that was in the works for 40 years before it was popularized?

I can't agree. I wouldn't care if it was Google, Samsung, Sony, Toyota, Ford...doesn't matter.

I just personally cannot agree.

If Windows 8 had a dock that looked remarkably like OS X's dock I'd be against that 100%.

If Android looked like iOS to the point of MIUI in it's earlier iterations I'd be against it...hence why I'm againts touchwhiz and SOME iterations of the Galaxy S (T-mobile Vibrant I'm looking at you)

Samsung is a copycat firm...not to the extent mentioned by people here, but it's obvious.

If Apple wasn't going after the Xoom and HTC (who went out of their way to avoid similarity) I'd have nothing against the cases. But it is apparent they want to cut off the competitions legs by any means necessary...

which is shocking to me considering that IMO for the general consumer both Mac OS and iOS are much better suited than most Android devices and most bloatware filled PCs... the booming market share and rising stock is indicative of a mutual feeling across the board.

Fair enough: how many here are willing to take a bet that within two years the total sum Apple collects on these suits and counter-suits is less than their payouts?

Good analysis. I won't take your bet, although i am tempted. But I think you are missing the non-monetary effects. I AM willing to bet a large sum that Samsung will have stopped using Apple's "trade dress" in their products by your 2-year deadline. Which I believe was Apple's primary goal in suing Samsung all over the world.

It's not about the money for Apple, at least not in this instance. They will happily pay damages if they have achieved their goal: to sell products that are Different.

You keep saying that - even though it has been pointed out again and again that you're wrong.

Read the German judge's decision. He found Samsung to be in violation of Apple's design patent based on 6 very specific criteria - not just 'loose resemblance'. I'm not going to look it up, but it included things like having a metal one-piece back which wrapped around the sides and was visible from the front. Equal size bezels all the way around. And several other items.

It would have been easy for Samsung to make a tablet that was different. Heck, most of the ones in the picture you keep showing are probably different enough that Samsung would not have gotten into trouble. But they chose to make a near-exact copy of Apple's product and violated the design patent.

What about the Dutch judge said? He basically thrown out all the look and feel claims by Apple.

I read a Fullan Mul..'s article on FOSS site, even his translation I can see that the German judge discussed but implied the Community Design registered as legitimate. So, Samsung can rubbish the Cummunity Design in German Court, then this German judge decision has no relevance.

Like AbsoluteDesign posted here apple tablet design was not new. Samsung might have seen the trand from IPad and used their own design (Samsung Digital Photo frame 2006) into their tab.

Apple might have known that the look and feel claim had no base, so they had to go with the software patents in Austraila. Absolute Design said that those patents were related to multi touch. If what he said is true, it only proves that how ridiculous they are patenting everyting while they are enjoying all goodies(Android Notification Centre) developed by others.

The only thing I see in this battle is that both companies want the same thing - market share and money. I love apple products but I can't take their side on this and neither can I take Samsungs side on this one. They both deserve a spanking! The whole patent system needs to take a step back a figure out whether or not the current system is the best for our economy and innovation.

Of course not, Samsung is probably paying you to write this tripe with all the hallmarks of a quasi middle of the fence view, astroturfer seeking to present as reasonable.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Like AbsoluteDesign posted here apple tablet design was not new. Samsung might have seen the trand from IPad and used their own design (Samsung Digital Photo frame 2006) into their tab.

Samsung is quite welcome to release a thick tablet with a beige plastic back and buttons based on their 2006 design, come to think of it the Galaxy Tab 10.1v that Samsung scrapped the minute they saw the iPad 2 is closer to the picture frame they showed TWO YEARS AFTER APPLE LODGED THE DESIGN in question with the EU, i.e. in 2004.

But what the hey, you keep believing that fantastical notion you picked up somewhere on the Internet.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Samsung is quite welcome to release a thick tablet with a beige plastic back and buttons based on their 2006 design, come to think of it the Galaxy Tab 10.1v that Samsung scrapped the minute they saw the iPad 2 is closer to the picture frame they showed TWO YEARS AFTER APPLE LODGED THE DESIGN in question with the EU, i.e. in 2004.

But what the hey, you keep believing that fantastical notion you picked up somewhere on the Internet.

For god sake, have you seen the comunity design? It does not look like Ipad nor Samsung GT. It looks rather similar to tablets before 2004, see images AbsoluteDesign posted. If you look at the 'Tablet Newspapers (1994)', you can see that the Comunity Design is a copy from it.

Tech companies do compete each other in certain aspects like thinness. Anything wrong with that?